I think your pretty wrong thinking I'm not scriptural about this... I'll give you the quotes... but first, you need to understand that Christ is the head of the church and that we are his "body", at the end, we will be together with him, ruling nations with a rod of iron. Pretty though, hein? but true nevertheless. The wisdom and power needed for such a task will flow down right from above, meaning straight from God, trough Christ, to us who reign with him. You only need to refer to his being one with his father. He said he does what he sees and hears from the father. And he wanted us to be one as he was one with God.

Have you ever considered that religious texts exist specifically to support a god but logic and reason exist to test the validity of all ideas?

Have you ever considered that the reason you believe in your version of god is that it is the religion that surrounds you and/or it was the religion of your parents? In other words, did you investigate all the religions of the world and decide this one is the right one? What did you learn about the other religions of the world?

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

When you mention about the flood covering the mount everest... You have to realise that mount everest didn't exist in that time.

I await your peer-reviewed Geology paper as evidence for the above claim, and in the meantime will refrain from doing a facepalm and shrieking "You can't be serious! That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week."

I didn't facepalm and shreik...I just made such a WTF expression...my face muscles actually hurt a little while I was thinking; "You can't be serious! That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week."

To the OP I have a basic question "How am I to seperate your statements from a complete delusion?" You know, the starting point the starting point of determining what is reality and what is not.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

When you mention about the flood covering the mount everest... You have to realise that mount everest didn't exist in that time.

Sounds like an epic sig to me!

Yeah, I've actually heard this one before -- I think I read about it on Answers in Genesis. Basically, the idea is that the earth was mostly a lot flatter back then than it is today, Yahweh brought down all the rain, then to get rid of the flood, he altered the earth's crust so we would have deep trenches and high mountains and so on, and all the flood water that showed up is now the oceans. It's basically an attempt to explain how Yahweh got rid of all the water -- their answer is that he didn't. Whatever.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Yeah, I've actually heard this one before -- I think I read about it on Answers in Genesis. Basically, the idea is that the earth was mostly a lot flatter back then than it is today, Yahweh brought down all the rain, then to get rid of the flood, he altered the earth's crust so we would have deep trenches and high mountains and so on, and all the flood water that showed up is now the oceans. It's basically an attempt to explain how Yahweh got rid of all the water -- their answer is that he didn't. Whatever.

Yeah, I've actually heard this one before -- I think I read about it on Answers in Genesis. Basically, the idea is that the earth was mostly a lot flatter back then than it is today, Yahweh brought down all the rain, then to get rid of the flood, he altered the earth's crust so we would have deep trenches and high mountains and so on, and all the flood water that showed up is now the oceans. It's basically an attempt to explain how Yahweh got rid of all the water -- their answer is that he didn't. Whatever.

Yeah, I've actually heard this one before -- I think I read about it on Answers in Genesis. Basically, the idea is that the earth was mostly a lot flatter back then than it is today, Yahweh brought down all the rain, then to get rid of the flood, he altered the earth's crust so we would have deep trenches and high mountains and so on, and all the flood water that showed up is now the oceans. It's basically an attempt to explain how Yahweh got rid of all the water -- their answer is that he didn't. Whatever.

It's not in the least bit surprising that when Brian Dunning did his list of "The Ten Most Unscientific Sites on the Web", AIG came in at number five. (For additional "amusement", imagine how much worse the top four had to have been...)

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

When you mention about the flood covering the mount everest... You have to realise that mount everest didn't exist in that time. please re-read the chapters of creation up to the flood. You will notice that the there was probably little if not any rain at all on the earth. the water was comming out of the ground like dew in the morning. You will note also that there was only hills for the most part. The earth or mainland part of the planet was one piece of land. When the rain came in Noah's time, the rain only falled for 40 days without ceassing.

Bold mine

Thank you for your letter.

Here is something I would like you to consider. The folks who wrote the OT lived in the desert. They didn't see very much rain. They also didn't see many mountains.

They certainly though the earth was one piece of land. One, flat piece of land. They did not know they lived on a globe. They did not know that there were completely different ecosystems on earth. They did not know nearly as much about the world as we do now. And they wrote about the world, as they understood it.

You have access to so much more information than these folks who walked the earth so many years ago. Your life will be so much richer if you decide to access the available information, and make informed decisions.

.....it seems to me that when the bible refers to a place where there will be grinding of teeth, it refers to the people being outside of the kingdom ruled nations... which will be in the dark, wailing and grinding their teeth at us, in the kingdom of God.....

whoah - hold on there. I thought you just said that the people outside were there because they CHOSE not to follow your god? If I CHOOSE something, I don't then sit there all sad because I know the other choice was better - I'd have chosen the better side in the first place.

So what you appear to be saying is either:

1) People are expected to make a choice WITHOUT all the details - and will not be allowed to change their minds when they know the truth.2) People will not actually be allowed to make a choice at all - god will decide who is in and who is out.3) Or, you believe that people deliberately choose something they know is the inferior choice, because.....well, you'll need to tell me.

So which of the above is the "personal understanding" you have come to?

Will it be a dictatorship? Yes and No... As far as I understand the bible, we will have quite some freedom to set systems up, economic or other, but only under strict rules of fairness, honesty and care for our neighbors. No one will be able to kill or steal without being caught and stopped. No one will drown, no one will die out of accidents. No war will be waged on anyone. But the bible clearly says that people will still die, but that they would be regarded as cursed, even though they would be 100 years old. This would indicate that for most, attaining that age would be considered normal during the thousand year reign of Christ. Therefore, not submitting to the rulership of Christ would be fatal in the end presumably.

Let me tell you why it is wrong. I will tell you in Biblical terms.

We know from the Bible that fornicators will not go to heaven: 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Well they could all spontaneously abort that day. That would mean abortions are a needed element of God's plan. God is therefore pro-abortion.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

About rulers and ruled. Those who don't like God go to Hell to hang out with Beelzebub, but those who do like and follow God will get to rule with him.

Here is the problem with that;

Those who don't like God are either in Hell, or, if the Hosts of Light win in the Final Fight Scene, they are simply vanquished out of reality alltogether, along with those fallen angels and gogs and magogs who were somehow not planned for by the all powerful white God of America.

That means you will a.) be ruling over an empty kingdom, or b.) (As previously stated) not in a kingdom at all, more like a democracy. I cannot find a precedent for God being pro-democracy. He's never held a vote about any of his laws. This would lead me to believe that you won't be ruling alongside God, you'll be ruled BY God, and if the Mormon version of heaven is valid (Mind numbingly dull), I think I'd prefer to be vanquished from reality.

EDIT: Also,

If Jesus and God are one, as many Christian mytholigies allude to and many nuts on the internet flat out assert, then in sending himself to Earth to die, God committed suicide, a Cardinal sin barring him from heaven. Even if they are not the same person, Jesus did not take steps to avoid his death, which by Catholic lore[1] means he committed suicide, barring him from heaven. From this we can see that either a.) Jesus and/or God are ebing tended to by a delighted Devil in Hell, or b.) God, whose image we were made in, and his Son, who is often depicted as suspiciously white, do not follow God's own laws, or c.) The Catholics are full of exrement, or, the most tempting option, d.) You're all full of it.

It's not in the least bit surprising that when Brian Dunning did his list of "The Ten Most Unscientific Sites on the Web", AIG came in at number five. (For additional "amusement", imagine how much worse the top four had to have been...)

I really cant imagine those other sites. Sometimes I have to question whether Im really existing in an era of such stupidity. But existence is something we have to assume, or so I was taught.

Sometimes I have to question whether Im really existing in an era of such stupidity.

The only way I can go on in the face of such overwhelming stupidity is to remind myself that the internet is a tool that allows every dipshit with a keyboard and an internet connection to share their stupid with the whole world. It's not that people are actually more stupid than they were earlier in history, it's just that more of them have the means to show it.

I have no proof that this is true, it's just a coping mechanism I often utilize for my own sanity.

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

Also condemned are people who say they believe but do not always obey the Word of God, so there are many so-called Christians who will not see heaven - I don't know what sect you are a member of, but you must accept that all other sects are damned.

Additionally, there are all new-born babies and infants who have not the understanding to comprehend Jesus - so they go to Hell.

There are the mentally disabled (or those suffering from demons); these people too are condemned to hell (just like Hitler condemned them.

Then there are the Jews, all of them. They don't accept Christ and will rot in Hell for ever.

Then there are the billions on the planet who have never heard of Jesus - they have done nothing wrong, but will go to Hell for not believing in Him.

Quote

It's just my personal understanding of it. So be forgiving.

There are thus 2 possibilities:

(i) You are a false prophet and will be sent to Hell for telling untruths about God without His having actually spoken to you.

(ii) Everyone has their own understanding of God, so, really, there is no god - he is just "your opinions".

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

It is so sad that you are totally deluded. You believe in your nonsense so much that anything anyone says to you will just bounce off. You are like the psychiatric patient who does not take medication - nothing will get through to him or her.

Do you believe in Moses and the flight from Egypt? Never happened. There is no trace of any refugees from Egypt (which would number over 1,000, 000) taking a walk around a desert for 40 years. There is no trace of plagues in Egypt, or first-born sons being killed.

I see you believe in a Christ figure. It is highly doubtful that he ever existed as portrayed in your Bible. Again there is no record of him or his ridiculous miracles.

I could go on and on but what is the use? You won't believe anything other than your delusion. I think that anti-psychotic drugs would be very beneficial for you.

Logged

People are 'erroneously confident' in their knowledge and underestimate the odds that their information or beliefs will be proved wrong. They tend to seek additional information in ways that confirm what they already believe. Max Bazenman, Harvard University